But some local Republican members of Congress had very different reactions.

They applauded Trump last Friday when he authorized airstrikes against Syria in retaliation for the regime's use of chemical weapons. But when Obama tried to do the same thing in 2013 and asked for congressional approval, these same lawmakers criticized him for a "muddled" foreign policy and potentially escalating hostilities.

Obama, like Trump, was responding to the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons.

Congress did not approve the strike in 2013, though a year later, Obama went ahead and bombed Syria anyways in a military campaign against ISIS.

Even Trump himself criticized Obama for striking Syria, writing that it will lead to "more debt and a possible long term conflict."

What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.

Here’s how some local members of Congress have changed their tune on Syria.

U.S. Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Columbia Tusculum, in 2013:

He didn’t believe military action in Syria was in “America’s clear security interest.”

“If America is to remain a leader in the world, we cannot continue to confuse our allies and embolden our adversaries with muddled language and action,” Wenstrup said in 2013.

He also said the Obama administration's foreign policy was not guided by a "coherent set of principles and guidelines," and instead was marked by a series of "off-the-cuff" remarks by the president and his Secretary of State John Kerry.

Brad Wenstrup(Photo: Provided)

Wenstrup in 2018: “The use of chemical weapons violates every norm of international diplomacy, and indeed, human decency. President Trump’s decision to launch precision airstrikes targeted to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons capabilities shows the world that the United States and its allies will not tolerate these atrocities and the killing of innocents,” Wenstrup said in a statement.

Wenstrup’s office responded that much has changed in the past five years. In 2013, America had no troops on the ground, no international coalition and Congress had no briefings or information about possible bombings of Syria, said Ann Tumolo, Wenstrup’s spokeswoman.

In the five years since, the military has been on the ground and Congress has debated the issue and been “regularly and repeatedly briefed,” she said. Wenstrup serves on the House Committee on Intelligence and has received classified briefings on Syria in the past five years.

“Over the last five years, there is a clear history of Congressional deliberation and action in U.S. involvement in Syria, which is dramatically different from the lack of deliberation and votes in the weeks surrounding the 2013 decision,” Tumolo said.

"I do not believe the administration's proposal is the right answer," Portman said in 2013.

Sen. Rob Portman pauses for a reporter's question as he arrives at a closed-door GOP strategy session on the Republican health care overhaul on June 20, 2017.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

Portman in 2018: "I support the action taken tonight to hold Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad accountable for his barbarous chemical weapons attack against his own people," Portman tweeted last Friday. "We must put #Syria on notice, as well as its enablers in Tehran and Moscow that this will not be tolerated."

I support the action taken tonight to hold Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad accountable for his barbarous chemical weapons attack against his own people. We must put #Syria on notice, as well as its enablers in Tehran and Moscow, that this will not be tolerated.

Obama didn’t have a strategy for the region, said Portman’s spokeswoman Emily Benavides in a statement to The Enquirer. Obama’s policies would have led “to further chaos and instability” while Trump’s actions have “prioritized defeating ISIS, holding accountable those who use chemical weapons, and bringing further stability to the region,” she said.

Benavides cited Obama's withdrawal from Iraq against the advice of the military as an example of the chaos of Obama's foreign policy.

Portman believes Trump has done a better job of strengthening relationships with allies to defeat ISIS and pushing back on Iran.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in 2013: McConnell found Obama's plan to strike Syria was "fundamentally flawed" and worried the "unintended consequences of this strike could be a new cycle of escalation."

McConnell in 2018: McConnell found Trump's airstrike on Syria as an appropriate response to the use of chemical weapons, which "is simply unacceptable."

"It was time to act," McConnell said Monday on the floor of the U.S. Senate. "Americans have become used to flawless execution on the part of the uniformed military."

McConnell didn't change his stance, said spokeswoman Stephanie Penn. He judged both plans on their merits. Trump's strike intended to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, she said.

Penn said Obama's response, on the other hand, "was uncertainty and had to sell to different audiences-one sell being that the strikes would be unbelievably small, while others were told the damage would be done to the regime itself."

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Garrison, in 2013: Massie has remained consistent. He opposed the Syria strikes in 2013.

“We cannot improve a situation with chemical weapons by attacking with kinetic weapons,” Massie wrote in 2013 in an editorial in The Enquirer. “Contributing to the Syrian death count will not make anything better. The civil war in Syria is not America's fight and not an immediate threat to America's security. Why should American taxpayers be forced to pay for the United States to act?”

Rep. Thomas Massie was one of three members of the U.S. House to vote against $7.85 billion in aid for hurricane victims.(Photo: The Enquirer/Scott Wartman)

Massie in 2018: Trump hasn’t convinced Massie that airstrikes are the answer in Syria.

"I haven't read France's or Britain's "Constitution," but I've read ours and nowhere in it is presidential authority to strike Syria," Massie tweeted.

I haven’t read France’s or Britain’s “Constitution,” but I’ve read ours and no where in it is Presidential authority to strike Syria.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, in 2013: In 2013, Brown didn’t come out for or against the strikes. He worked as part of a bipartisan group of senators to draft a new resolution to attempt diplomacy rather than bombing.

“I’m always cautious whenever you send military strikes or troops anywhere,” Brown said in 2013 on Ohio University’s WOUB.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

Brown in 2018: Brown last week seemed to have no objections to Trump’s airstrike, deeming them in a tweet “a targeted and proportional response to the Assad regime’s gruesome attacks on civilians.”

First, I'm grateful to our servicemembers who carried out this mission. Last night's strikes appear to be a targeted and proportional response to the Assad regime's gruesome attacks on civilians, and it's important that our allies in Britain and France were part of this process.

Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Westwood, in 2013: Chabot advocated for arming and assisting moderate rebel forces in Syria. He said he was unconvinced about Obama's plan to bomb Syria.

"I am deeply concerned that the limited military action being considered will not be significant enough to deter future atrocities by Assad and might even boost his image in the Middle East, making a bad situation even worse," Chabot said in 2013.

Steve Chabot Community Press guest columnist

Chabot in 2017: Chabot hasn't weighed in on the latest Syrian airstrike. But when Trump ordered a bombing in 2017, Chabot supported it.

"The President’s response makes clear that Mr. Assad’s repeated violations of international norms will no longer be tolerated," Chabot said in 2017.

Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Troy, in 2013: Davidson was not in Congress in 2013.

Davidson in 2018: Davidson in a tweet said he agreed with Trump's decision to bomb Syria but believed it needed Congress' permission.

"Are we prepared to sustain this response until we obtain Constitutional authorization?" Davidson tweeted. "I agree with the decision, but it highlights the continued shortcomings of current authorizations. Congress has once again failed in one of its most basic and essential functions."

Are we prepared to sustain this response until we obtain Constitutional authorization? I agree with the decision, but it highlights the continued shortcomings of current authorizations. Congress has once again failed in one of its most basic and essential functions. #Article1https://t.co/Dfp5KDC8gh